148 "Journal of the Council"

Monday 8th. November 1790

The Council met.

Pres't. the Hon'ble. John Kilty

James Brice

John Davidson

William Hindman

Randolph B. Latimer Esquires

Ordered that the western shore Treasurer pay to Christopher Richmond Sixty five
pounds balance of his pay as Agent for attending the Settlement of the Accounts between the
State of Maryland and the United States as allowed by the Board due the 1st. instant [p.
234]

Ordered that the western shore Treasurer pay to John Shaw twelve pounds, seventeen
shillings and six pence per Account passed by the Auditor.

Agreeably to the notice given by the Hon'ble. John Kilty Esquire on the 2d. instant he
delivers his dissent to the Determination of that Day as follows: [Quotation marks corrected
for clarity]

"I dissent to the declaration of Representatives elect because it includes William Pinkney
Esqr., and I ground my objection to him on the fact that being a resident of the 4th. district,
and not having the greatest number of votes of all the Candidates residing in that district he
is not elected a representative of this State.

"It may be perceived that laying aside any relation Mr. Pinkney may claim to the 3d.
district in Virtue of his intention or declaration, I view him only as the co-resident and
competitor of Mr. Sterett, who having the greatest number of votes, I consider Mr. Pinkney
as an unsuccessful candidate. The Board in admitting him to be elected for the 3d. district
although resident elsewhere, are governed confessedly by a supposition that the Regulations of
our Act of Assembly on the Subject of elections are repugnant to the Constitution of the
United States, and of course ought not to be regarded.

"It is not necessary for me to discuss the very problematical right the Board have assumed
of disregarding the express directions of a law on account of its supposed opposition to the
spirit of the federal Constitution; because on the fullest examination I have been able to give
the Subject I am confidently of opinion that the act contains nothing but what is within the
authority vested by the Convention in the State administrations.

"The matter then in dispute is whether the election law of the State contains regulations
repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, or to be more particular, whether it
exceeds the Authority given by the Article which empowers the State Legislatures to prescribe
the times, places, and manner of holding elections.

"I am not acquainted with the precise grounds on which the Majority of the Board have
taken the Affirmative side of this question, [p. 235] but as a paper apparently written
by Mr. Pinkney has been submitted to the perusal of the members, and as it contains the
substance of all the reasoning I have heard on that side, I shall content myself with an answer
to such parts of his Argument as contradict the opinion I maintain.

"After stating the 2nd. Section of the 1st Article of the federal Constitution, which pre-
scribes the qualification of representatives, and the 4th. section of the same Article which gives
the regulation of elections to the States in the first instance, Mr. Pinkney observes as follows—
'These are the only clauses of the Constitution material to the subject; and their construction